I'm a numbers guy - I can make numbers tap dance for me. It's ALL in the presentation - in much the same way that one can take any Nostradamus quatrain and make him a soothsayer with the benefit of hindsight. Heck, I agree to a degree - but, come on ... the Pack lacked a defense in almost any measurable. This past season, I firmly believe that ANY defense would have propelled the Pack into the Super Bowl.

I think that to totally buy into the writer's theory, you first have to buy into the writer's preconceived notion that the Giants were lucky to be in the Super Bowl and the Patriots weren't. Take away that particular qualifier and the writer presents a very compelling affirmative defense of the theory that he's putting forward.

Back in the day... I'd have said that the writer wrote this article backwards, meaning, he wrote the last paragraph first and built upon it until he reached the lead. He knew what he wanted to say before he even sat down to the keyboard. Just my opinion...